MONA ALBERT, APPELLANT,
v.
GOLDMAN-LINK, P.A., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Mona Albert appeals a trial court order granting her former law firm, Goldman-Link, P.A., a charging lien for attorney's fees in her alimony and child support case. The appellate court affirms the charging lien itself but reverses the trial court's application of a contingency risk multiplier to enhance the hourly rate above the contract amount.
A charging lien may be properly imposed in this case; however, a contingency risk multiplier cannot be applied to enhance the contractual hourly rate in a fee dispute between attorney and client. The award of attorney's fees cannot exceed the contract rate of $150 per hour.
[1] An attorney's charging lien may be affirmed on appeal when the appellate court lacks a transcript of the evidentiary hearing and is therefore compelled to give full defer…
[2] The application of a contingency risk multiplier to enhance attorney's fees is a legal question reviewable on appeal even without a transcript of the evidentiary hearing.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“An award of attorney's fees cannot exceed the contract rate.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that limits attorney's fees to the contractual amount in attorney-client disputes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMona Albert retained Goldman-Link, P.A. to represent her in an action for alimony and child support arrearages under a contract providing for an hourl…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contingency Risk Multiplier cases and more on FLexlaw
PARIENTE, Judge.
This is an appeal by Mona Albert (client) from a final order granting an attorney’s charging lien to Goldman-Link, P.A., the law firm which represented her in an action for alimony and child support arrearages. The client challenges both the propriety of the trial court granting a charging lien and the amount of the charging lien.
We affirm the trial court’s order imposing a charging lien, but reverse the application of a contingency risk multiplier. We have no record of the attorney’s fees hearing. Without a transcript of the hearing where evidence was taken on whether a charging lien should be imposed or a reconstructed statement, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(3), we are compelled to give full deference to the trial court’s findings of fact and affirm the imposition of the charging lien. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979); Gardner v. Gardner, 501 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
However, we are permitted to review the application of the contingency risk multiplier without a transcript because this issue turns solely on a legal question. See Jordan v. City of Hollywood, 644 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). The trial court’s order in this case is patently erroneous in that it applies' a contingency risk multiplier to enhance the law firm’s contractual hourly rate. See generally Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828, 835 (Fla.1990).
The contract between the client and the law firm provided for an hourly rate of $150. An award of attorney’s fees cannot exceed the contract rate. Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1151 (Fla.1985), modified on other grounds, Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d at 828; Rosenberg v. Levin, 409 So. 2d 1016, 1021 (Fla.1982).
Moreover, a contingency fee arrangement is ethically prohibited in family law proceedings. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d at 835; R. Regulating Fla.Bar 4-1.5(F)(3)(a). Lastly, the principles of Rowe and Quan- ' strom allowing a court to enhance fees by a contingent risk multiplier apply to the award of fees from third parties and do not govern fee disputes between attorney and client. See Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley, P.A. v. Poletz, 652 So. 2d 366, 368 (Fla.1995); In re Estate of Platt, 586 So. 2d 328, 333 (Fla.1991); Rowe, 472 So. 2d at 1150.
Accordingly we affirm the trial court’s order enforcing an attorney’s charging lien, but reverse the award of a contingency risk multiplier. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.
DELL and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jaeger v. Robert M. Jaeger, D.O., 182 So. 3d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…etent substantial evidence. The trial court granted the attorneys’ objections, finding that the “magistrate made a legal error in concluding charging liens do not apply to undifferentiated support arrears[,j” relying on Albert v. Goldman-Link, P.A., 661 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The trial court then permitted dis [*699] bursement to the' attorneys arid denied immediate payment to the former wife. She appeals.1 In Dyer, we held that “an attorney’s charging lien should not be enforced against an award of…1 / 2
-
Trontz v. Winig, 905 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…ng lien to appellant’s homestead, we affirm. The order granting the lien was an appealable final order, and appellant did not appeal it. See, e.g., Shawzin v. Donald J. Sasser, P.A., 658 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Albert v. Goldman-Link, P.A., 661 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Moreover, unlike Sherbill v. Miller Manufacturing Co., 89 So. 2d 28 (Fla.1956), on which appellant relies, here appellant specifically agreed to a charging lien on his homestead property, described in the order as an agreed disp…
-
Flynn v. Sarasota Cnty. Pub. Hosp. Bd., 169 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (M.D. Fla. 2001)…based upon hourly billings and hourly rate, it follows that there can be no charging lien for additional fees as Florida law clearly holds that there can be no award of fees which is in excess of the contract rate. See Albert v. Goldman-Link, 661 So.2d 1293, 1294 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Rosenberg v. Levin, 409 So.2d 1016, 1021 (Fla.1982). There being a valid fee agreement, it also follows that Gardner, Wilkes may not recover on its alternative but mutually exclusive theory of quantum meruit. See…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990)
- Rosenberg v. Levin, 409 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1982)
- In re Est. OF Lester Platt, 586 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 1991)
- Searcy v. Paige N. Poletz, 652 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 1995)
- Gardner v. Elinor Chechak Gardner, 501 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- In re The Est. OF Helen Smith v. City OF Hollywood, 644 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)